116 comments:

Well, Angie Merkel and David Cameron say multi-culti is a joke (we've been learning the same thing here) and a good many commenters here have opined that Islam can't exist in a free society.

So I guess that means the Gray Lady is officially full of it.

And we're all part of "A Blogosphere of Bigots".

Althouse, shame on you for letting us on the electric Internet.

PS In the sidebar ("The killings could weaken nationalist fervor in Europe, as the Oklahoma City bombing cooled off militias in the U.S. in the late 1990s."), they let the cat out of the bag. Maybe this will make everyone love Little Zero again.

"The global Islamophobic blogosphere consists of loosely connected networks of people — including students, civil servants, capitalists, and neo-Nazis. Many do not even see themselves as “right-wing,” but as defenders of enlightened values, including feminism."

I love how they connect neo-Nazi's with anyone who dares complain about the treatment of women under Islam.

It's the same thing with violent TV/movies/video games, isn't? A simple question of how many people actually participate in those forms of media versus the microscopic, by comparison, number that act out violently.

"A Muslim group in the United Kingdom has launched a campaign to turn twelve British cities – including what it calls "Londonistan" – into independent Islamic states. The so-called Islamic Emirates would function as autonomous enclaves ruled by Islamic Sharia law and operate entirely outside British jurisprudence.

The Islamic Emirates Project, launched by the Muslims Against the Crusades group, names the British cities of Birmingham, Bradford, Derby, Dewsbury, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Luton, Manchester, Sheffield, as well as Waltham Forest in northeast London and Tower Hamlets in East London as territories to be targeted for blanket Sharia rule."

And there are SHARIA CONTROLLED ZONE posters "across the UK" warning that you are entering a zone where Islamic rules, such as 'no alcohol', are enforced.

You know, Meade's a man who knows stuff about gardening. But even he would be hard pressed to explain how you'd raise enough cash ... all by yourself ... planting enough vegetables ... that you could afford "outfits." And, guns. And, cars that you stuff with fertilizer.

The only thing I can think is possible here, short of really being able to grow trees that bloom cash ... Is that this dude was convincing enough he could buy it all on credit.

There must be, now, in Oslo, then ... besides the dead teenagers ... a whole bunch of people who haven't been told, yet, by the bank, that their debt is noncollectable, no?

You know, even throwing hay around a farm ... you still need to hire some strong person who is willing to help you move around the occasional rocks. And, loads of vegetables you sit around all day and pull from the ground.

How much of the Oslo story just doesn't compute?

Even hitler had buddies. (He also had a tailor who made sure his uniforms fit). Nobody said hitler did this on a shoe string, either.

But it's really just a local problem.

The other thing I don't believe? In 32 years of living locally, this guy met no one he'd know. And, had no friends.

But access to credit.

Even at a bank, if you're in Oslo, you don't need someone else to sign when you want a loan?

Money must just drip out of the Nobel Peace Prize window.

But then, again, everything I needed to know about Norway, I learned at Lillihammer.

There needs to be some effort at assimilation and accomodation in order for the social contract to work. Other than that, I'm just as comfortable with "you leave me alone, I leave you alone" (as long as your activities don't impact too negatively on mine or disrupt the social contract).

Regarding the conflict between Islam and secular values in Europe, I think the analogy for this conflict will be the English civil war between Protestants and Catholics. There were Catholics who opposed the push for a Catholic nation (in fact, the gunpowder plot was revealed by a Catholic), but Catholics in general fared poorly during this time. I think that this is what will happen if a conflict does occur. There will be some Muslims who oppose the imposition of Islam on the public sphere (maybe even most), but in an attempt to stop the spread, most Muslims will fare poorly.And we'll be reminded of it every day.

It's so easy for the left to dismiss Breivik as a psycho madman and ignore the reasons he gave. They do so at their own peril. What happens when the next Breivik happens, and the next? Will they sweep it all under the rug? So delusional...

"...There will be some Muslims who oppose the imposition of Islam on the public sphere (maybe even most), but in an attempt to stop the spread, most Muslims will fare poorly..."

I question few if any Muslims will oppose public imposition of Islam. Some out of indifference, others out of fear. The mere criticism of Islam will get you branded as a racist so don't hold your breath that the Euros will stand firm, except ironically, the French who to their credit, still hold a strong sense of pride in themselves and their culture.

As for the rest of W. Europe, I think they'll cheerfully go the way of the burka if it gets them more multi-culti cred.

A multi-cultural society is possible, an omni-cultural society is not. Too many groups of some sort or another are too intolerant to willfully allow the existence of certain others.

Some atheists and many liberals/lefties hate many religions and wish to eliminate them. Some religions can't tolerate other religions. Some people, for a variety of reasons, don't like democracy and/or individual freedom. And, the list goes on.

The NYT is just demonstrating that they, themselves, don't like a culturally diverse society and consistently find ways to disparage the groups of which they disapprove.

Brievik slaughtered almost ninety people as a warrior for Christianity in its fight against heathen Muslims. Clearly Christianity is a religion of hate.

Is the above true? Is it fair?

Of course not. Brievik is an evil person who lashed out in an evil way. But it is telling that Ann Althouse cultivates a blog that pushes the big lie that the acts of a small percentage of Muslims condemns the religion of over a billion people.

Does certain sects of Islam need to reconcile with the modern view of the world? Of course. But there are many sects of Christianity that need to do the same.

Does certain sects of Islam need to reconcile with the modern view of the world? Of course. But there are many sects of Christianity that need to do the same

Would you elaborate your moral equivalence a bit more…which sects have been blowing up buildings, killing tens of thousands of folks, destroying cultural icons, and calling for and performing the stoning of gay? And by ‘sect” I mean, CHRISTIAN sects, those pesky Lutherans, the Catholics, the Southern Baptists?

Does I've seen nothing to suggest that this man is a Christian, follows Christian dogma, wrote about Christian beliefs or was encouraged to kill

Well he freely admits to having been inspired by:1) Sarah Palin;2) Glenn Beck;3) Rush Limbaugh; and4) The TEA Party.But stay in denial if you want, about the global reach and effect of Rightwing Hatred and Extremism.

The use of the pseudo-word Islamophobic is an attempt to imply the existence of an anxiety disorder characterized by an irrational fear or hatred of the religion known as Islam and/or its adherents known as Muslims. OK, so how many people have been murdered or maimed by self-identified Muslims acting by their own admission in the name of Islam just in the last ten years? High six figures minimum. Since Islam has lately done its best to appear incompatible with civilization and democracy in particular and just plain loathsome generally, aversion and contempt are perfectly rational reactions. Ergo Jostein Gaarder and Thomas Hylland Eriksen are just a couple of shit-for-brains libtards, and their OP-ED is a massive act of projection of their own bigotry and philistine pig-ignorance. Thank you.

I don't know. From what I have read, nationalism seemed to be his motivating force rather than religion

"...But it is telling that Ann Althouse cultivates a blog that pushes the big lie that the acts of a small percentage of Muslims condemns the religion of over a billion people..."

I've seen no evidence that its a small percentage. If it were, radical Islam would have been nipped in the bud a long time ago. When a cartoon of Mohammed results in worldwide riots that result in hundreds being killed, its fair to say your religion has issues.

I dont recall Christians going on a murder spree over the Last Temptation of Christ or Piss Christ.

The fallacy of multiculturalism is that it claims that no culture is any better or any worse than any other. It says that since the values of all cultures are equally valid, then it is the height of moral arrogance to prefer the values of one's own culture to those of other cultures. It logically follows that it is wrong to take actions that protect your own culture against encroachment by invading foreign cultures, or to propagate your own culture by having a large number of children. This is clearly the point of view of many in Europe, where birth rates are well below replacement level.

A society has a right to dictate limits to certain behaviors. Freedom of religion does not give a minority the right to restrict and coerce the majority. Are we going to respect "honor killings" and all aspects of Sharia law? No, we should not.

Hoosier Daddy wrote:I've seen no evidence that its a small percentage. If it were, radical Islam would have been nipped in the bud a long time ago.

Well said.

The social dynamic of Islam is slavery: The woman is the slave of the man. The infidel is the slave of the Muslim. The Muslim is the slave of Allah, and as such has no right to government himself or to make his own laws with which to regulate his daily life and society. Hence sharia, the holy, inviolate, and unalterable law of God. In my mind that amounts to incompatibility with Western democratic tradition and the very notion of personal autonomy to underpins it. If I'm wrong please show me my error.

@Joe" Well he freely admits to having been inspired by:1) Sarah Palin;2) Glenn Beck;3) Rush Limbaugh; and4) The TEA Party.But stay in denial if you want, about the global reach and effect of Rightwing Hatred and Extremism."

Yeah and the unibomber did the same with Al Gore.

He also mentioned the unibomber so he mentioned Al Gore too.

I'm going to mention you in some warped way on another blog and then you are going to be responsible for what I do.

Joking aside, Jay Retread makes a valid point…I, too, am hesitant to talk about “Islam” as (insert term here). One can make the case that Judaism is intolerant as it supported Slavery. That Judaism is incompatible with democracy, read Judges and the Story of David and Solomon. That Catholicism supports Monarchy. Certainly, at times, Yhwh and the State WERE united…certainly the “Divine Right of kings” had Biblical justification. His Holiness has waged war on Muslims, Jews, Albigensians, and Anabaptists. “Islam” covers a lot of folks and over 1,000 years of history. I do think it behooves us to be cautious in stating what “Islam” says, does, or supports.

Now what Salafists, Wahabists, and followers of Qtub say and support is another matter.

ManBearPig might not be Christie or Moore, but he's still a three plate meal at the zombie buffet Really Zombies would eat AlGore? I thought there was a limit to what a zombie would put down his/her gullet…I’m sure AlGore would worry about the carbon Footprint of the zombie, though.

I'm going to mention you in some warped way on another blog and then you are going to be responsible for what I do.

How's that work for you Are you one of the Althouse Hillbillies? I wouldn’t put anything past you guyz or galz….But I’m not too worried, unless you’re leaders like Palin or Limbaugh tell you mind-numbed robots WHAT to do, I doubt you’ll do too much..and as a Hetero-normative, Patriarchal Clone, I doubt you’ll be able to do too much outrageous, beyond eat a peach, or walk with your pants rolled up, or mayhap stay up past 10.00 PM.

I, too, am not convinced that the radical element within Islam is some small, isolated portion. Polls of Muslims tend to produce strong pluralities (and sometimes clear majorities) of support for imposing shariah. That fact by itself is enough to justify concern about whether Islam is compatible with Western democracy. Over and over again we see examples of how Islam in general refuses to participate according to the rules of a pluralistic society. Sure, there are individual Muslims who do. But organized Islam does not. It does not take supporting violence to demonstrate the fundamental incompatibility on display.

What is astounding is that these are not complex, "knotty" questions. The questions are simple. When asked if they would impose their religious law on others, Muslims very often say "yes." Elite liberals don't want to take them seriously, but I find it hard not to.

The problem is not with Muslims in general, but with orthodox Muslims. If they accept the Koran in its entirety, then they are ordered to dominate unbelievers through violent action (if submission is not forthcoming) and involuntary exploitation. When this directive is realized through a left-wing regime, then it is the basis for a local and global tyranny.

Another problem with contemporary immigrants (not only Muslims, but other ethnocentric people), is that in progressive numbers they not only reject assimilation of a native culture, but they actively seek to subvert it.

The left-wing (i.e., liberals) in Norway (and sympathizers) should be held accountable as accessories to the destabilization of society they have enforced and the increased incidence of murder and rape (100% of reported rapes in 2010 were committed by Muslims immigrants) that has followed with the new arrivals.

It's ironic that this ideological bloc promotes immigration (while starving their native nations) and then suggests that overpopulation is an imminent threat to the welfare of humanity. Did they expect the new immigrants to be pioneers and establish communities in unpopulated and undeveloped areas? Did they not realize that native men, women, and children would be displaced and exploited when immigration is progressive and often unmeasured? Each nation is essentially an administrative district, which should develop the natural and human resources within its jurisdiction.

There should be two trials in Norway, one for Breivik and another for those who betrayed the people of Norway.

If we consider accessories to crimes against humanity, I wonder how many individuals and groups will be strangled by this expanded net.

You don’t get pages and pages to make an idea work, you have just a very few pages…it’s tough.

I think the genre itself lends toward brevity. WWZ pulled it off through the novel interview mechanic. This story is laser-pointer specific in it's twist on the accepted lore, so it shouldn't take long to "flesh" it out.

Ms. Althouse, how many multicultural, democratic predominately Muslim nations are there? Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon? They are going in exactly the opposite direction. The dominate strain of the Muslim practice and a very prominent interpretation of the Koran is antidemocratic and intolerant. Eric Hoffer's "True Believer" has a insightful explanation of the mindset and attitude.

The question seems to be: Is Islam compatible with democracy? This ought to be fairly easy to answer. There are 47 nations in which Muslims are the majority population. Most of them seem to be democracies of some sort. But are they really?

The better question might be: In nations where the majority of the population is Muslim what degree of freedom is present? Uh oh. Not much of what the Western mind would call freedom in those countries. In most of them you stand a good chance of losing your head if you say or do something against Islamic tradition, no matter what ostensible form of government is claimed.

http://tinyurl.com/3e82pdd

There’s also some laughable categories. For example Iran is listed as a “Presidential republic” and a “Theocracy.” Pardon me, but it seems ludicrous in the extreme to believe that the 2 types of governments can exist simultaneously. We all know that the Mullahs rule in Iran and that the democratic trappings are nothing more than window dressing.

I don’t believe Islam is very compatible with freedom I would add, “at its current stage of development”…making the line read, “I don’t believe Islam, at its current stage of development, is very compatible with freedom.”

Catholicism and Protestant Christianity in the West, and Judaism outside Israel are spent forces. Nowhere in the West can appeals to religious principles motivate national action. This has been generally true since the Enlightenment, and the last time a Western "holy war" was fought was the Russian Civil War nearly a century ago, and even then it was only partly religious in nature and Russia doesn't quite count as part of the West.

Islam is not yet a spent force, and its dominant factions can still declare and prosecute war as a means to protect and advance its dogmas and political power. There may be Muslim factions that seek an Islamic enlightenment, a reformed religion that can exist peaceably within a pluralistic society that respects equality, democracy and personal autonomy, but at the moment those factions are in fear of the more retrograde elements of Islam who seek a return to the militant faith that spread the Quran from the Pyrenees to the Himalayas by the force of the sword.

Catholicism and Protestant Christianity in the West, and Judaism outside Israel are spent forces“Spent forces” so, in your definition, a religion is NOT a spent force if people will act on its tenets…Sounds like Islam is a “good” religion, then. Or that Catholicism or Protestantism or Judaism, need to get a lot more militant? SO basically you’re saying that you don’t have a problem with Islam, you have a problem with the other religions not being equally militant?

Wouldn’t it be better to say, that Catholicism and Protestantism have adapted to Modernity and the Enlightenment, in a manner that Islam has not yet?

I don’t believe Islam, at its current stage of development, is very compatible with freedom.

Well, sure. But how much time is Islam going to be given to be able to co-exist with freedom? Historically speaking, Western cultures seemed to have embraced freedom in a fairly short amount of time. The ancient Athenians certainly possessed a high degree of freedom for the time. So did Rome.

Jay Retread: Brievik slaughtered almost ninety people as a warrior for Christianity in its fight against heathen Muslims. Clearly Christianity is a religion of hate.[...]Does certain sects of Islam need to reconcile with the modern view of the world? Of course. But there are many sects of Christianity that need to do the same.

Oh for cryin' out loud, Jay. Try not to be so gullible. Just because the usual nitwits in the MSM immediately started blithering about the murderer being a "fundamentalist Christian" doesn't mean you have to play along. In case you haven't noticed, they do that with every instigator of "right wing" violence, regardless of the fact that, nine times out of ten, they turn out to be dead wrong on that point.

Doesn't the fact that "fundamentalist Christian" is pretty much a meaningless term outside its U.S. context cause the little skeptic bells in your brain to tinkle just a little?

BTW, the info's all out there - if you actually want to inform yourself about the murderer's beliefs you can read his meanderings for yourself to find out all about the fundie Jeebus beliefs you're sure he had. Good luck with that, 'cause it ain't there.

You know, it's hilarious how the deep thinkers who are always lecturing us about "nuance" and "not seeing everything in black and white", always have the most comically cartoonish world-views ("Everything is exactly the same as everything else!, Phew, I can stop thinking now!), and lack the ability to recognize the most obvious distinctions and incorporate them into their thinking.

Well, sure. But how much time is Islam going to be given to be able to co-exist with freedom? Historically speaking, Western cultures seemed to have embraced freedom in a fairly short amount of timeI don’t know, took about 300 years for the various Christian sects to come around….Vatican II is the Catholic Church finally accepting “Modernity.” Was this an acceptable or unacceptable length of time?

What is your start point for the “clock”…1683? 1919 and the establishment of Kemalist Turkey? 1945 and the “end” of Western Colonial domination of many Islamic areas? Meaning Islam ought ALREADY have adapted to Modernity or has another 234 years to go, to meet the Christian deadline.

I get “antsy” when we talk about “Islam this” or “Islam that” when the many of the same things could be said of Europe well within the last few centuries. It was not until the 19th C. that Britain allowed Catholics to hold public office and serve in the military. Jews have been subject to de facto discrimination under “Gentleman’s Agreements” well into this century. So, you want to compare Islam, whatever that means-do you mean Dearborn Michigan, Jakarta Indonesia, Cairo Egypt, or Teheran Iran-to modern Judaism or Catholicism? Is that a fair comparison?

"It is quite another to state that a multicultural society is impossible, or that Islam is incompatible with democracy. Yet the blogosphere to which Mr. Breivik belonged took these views as a basic premise."

I don't think this is right, unless by 'Breivik's' blogosphere he's referring only to some fringe I've never seen. I think the general rightist view is that multicultural cultists and their lawyers prevent the common sense measures which would allow a multicultural socierty to function. They do this by attacking all non-cult approved positions as bigotry and hatred, among other methods.

Sometimes those on the right shortcut the distinction because they're dealing with the currently available choices. But I don't know very many people who believe the best society we could devise would include completely segregating the various cultures.

"Conceding that a culturally diverse society raises knotty and complex social and political questions is one thing. It is quite another to state that a multicultural society is impossible, or that Islam is incompatible with democracy. Yet the blogosphere to which Mr. Breivik belonged took these views as a basic premise."

took about 300 years for the various Christian sects to come around….Vatican II is the Catholic Church finally accepting “Modernity.” Was this an acceptable or unacceptable length of time?

What is your start point for the “clock”…1683? 1919 and the establishment of Kemalist Turkey? 1945 and the “end” of Western Colonial domination of many Islamic areas? Meaning Islam ought ALREADY have adapted to Modernity or has another 234 years to go, to meet the Christian deadline.

As we contemplate exactly how the Open Borders of the progressive Jews, Catholic Church, Republican Corporatists will work out...and the Lefts & Christian Do-Gooders feverish work to facilitate mass Islamic immigration into the USA and Europe..Remember the Yugoslavian slogan.

"Diversity is our nation's greatest strength".

NOT!

The smart ones are the Japanese, Taiwanese, Chinese, and Koreans - who do not want their harmony and their norms ruined by mass 3rd Worlder immigration...and take no refugees.

I think we can all agree that it has been a good thing that Christianity was neutered and pushed out of the public realm starting about two hundred and fifty years ago. Before that Christianity was not that much different than what Islam is still struggling with today.

It has been really the last one hundred years that Christianity has been fully declawed. After all it was not that long ago that the Kuu Klux Klan and similar groups in Eastern Europe where engaging in pogroms in the name of Christ. Heck, Bosnia was just a decade ago.

It is interesting that Ann Althouse has cultivated a blog where the majority of her commenter's condemn the tolerant majority of Norway who have built an advanced peaceful society and instead have sympathy with the racist views of Brievik.

Brievik is cut from the same cloth as the evil fools who flew jets into the Twin Towers. But Ann's commenter's here are too blinded by their bigotry to see that obvious fact.

Comparing an ideal, "the best society we could devise" to Israel and more or less demanding that because the ideal is not met that the person who presented the ideal must not *approve* is rather weak.

As it is, my problem with multi-culturalism is that it doesn't encourage nor value the old model of "melting pot". It even fails at the metaphor of "quilt". It took laudable notions of diversity and tolerance and demanded perpetual separation and equivalency.

It's even worse than the irrational demand that everyone agree that there is no "better" when it comes to culture or belief. All cultures and all belief systems are equally good except for ours. Our culture and our beliefs are bad.

This twist happens because in multi-culti it's against the rules to criticize anyone else. Criticism can only be directed inward. A "good" person under multi-cultural rules is only allowed to say what we do wrong, even if our wrong-doing is insipid compared to any other. Comparing is not allowed.

Comparing is not allowed and so we're left rather bereft when some moron says that while the Norway thing is bad, what we do when we order a cheeseburger at McDonald's is worse or compares the distrust of Moslems to the height of mid-European anti-Semitism. We can't parse the moral question of two entirely different things. We don't know how. We're *conditioned* not to know how.

IMO, these aren't the only reasons that multi-culturalism is actively harmful in the world, but they're a good start at explaining why multi-culti doesn't make things better for anyone, it just makes them worse.

"It is interesting that Ann Althouse has cultivated a blog where the majority of her commenter's condemn the tolerant majority of Norway who have built an advanced peaceful society and instead have sympathy with the racist views of Brievik."

According to multi-cultural rules I get to criticise Norway. (Just to be clear on that.)

Also, I'd like to suggest, gently, that what you view as an "advanced peaceful society" is CULTURE. And one can not have one while undermining the other. One can not value non-integration and non-adaptation of the culture and expect the rewards that culture provides to continue indefinitely.

So, you want to compare Islam, whatever that means-do you mean Dearborn Michigan, Jakarta Indonesia, Cairo Egypt, or Teheran Iran-to modern Judaism or Catholicism? Is that a fair comparison?

Yep, I think it is a fair comparison. We are in the present, not 300 years ago, are we not? And Islam is in today’s time, the present time, not in the past.

I think where we differ is I don’t “give” Islam “time” to catch up to an enlightened standard of individual freedom as if Islam was a novice golfer and needed a handicap. The game’s too brutal and too ruthless for such niceties. There’s too much at stake.

Islam openly professes to the desire and intent to either subjugate me and mine to Islam’s oppression or to destroy us if we resist. Read their sacred writings, listen to their religious leaders, it’s all there for anyone who wants to know.

As for “ … Islam, whatever that means …” I mean the standard definition:

Islam: the religious faith of Muslims, based on the words and religious system founded by the prophet Muhammad and taught by the Koran, the basic principle of which is absolute submission to a unique and personal god, Allah.

Synova, for righties like yourself "multi-culturalism" is a strawman that keeps on giving. I have not heard anyone use the term except those on the far right like Rush Limbaugh for over twenty years now. But that is the right's game. Take something like "multi-culturalism," completely bend it and re-shape it till no one of any serious intellectual merit can even recognise it anymore and then pretend that liberals are unwilling to condemn muslim that stone gays and women who drive cars. Yeah! Thats the ticket!

Synova, there are all kinds of Christian and Jewish communities in the U.S. that don't ascribe to our basic tenets of freedom including the equality of women and men. What should we do to confront these threats to the "rewards that our culture provides"? What say you Synova?

In the linked piece, Gaarder and Eriksen say that “such acts of violence (i.e., the July 22 massacres) rarely occur independent of their social and cultural surroundings” and go on to argue that the “international right-wing blogosphere” Breivik inhabited played a role his violence.

In the aftermath of the massacre, it is fair to explore to what degree the culture of the “international right-wing blogosphere” tends to lead to such violent acts. The point of the piece is that the connection is strong.

That Breivik acted alone should give pause to those pushing the blogosphere/violence connection, although that fact isn’t mentioned. This is Loughner all over again if the argument is that everyone has to watch what he or she says or writes lest a single person gets pushed over the edge.

The irony is that the “right-wing blogosphere” in question was greatly interested in the extent to which Islamic culture leads to acts of violence. The Times and the authors consider the exploration of that subject to be bigoted.

Jay, I do not dispute the *intentions* of anyone promoting the notion that all cultures and belief systems are equal. The thing of it is, intentions mean jack squat.

Also, really! You're going to pick examples of tiny, extreme passivist and extreme insular religious based cultures... to do what? Prove that we can have internment camps of those who don't voluntarily live apart? No? Ghettos in the original Jewish sense? No? Then what about those tiny insular cultures proves that larger groups of non-self-isolating non-integrating cultures can live within a culture without changing it?

Besides that, you weren't praising US culture, were you. You were praising the *advanced* Norwegian culture. Norway, like most of Europe (if not all, but I compulsively hedge) does not have a tradition or value of a "melting pot." But they are convinced that they ought to be all sorts of tolerant. At what point does European type tolerance and moral flexibility live happily with Islam? When it caves and closes art exhibits?

Or is that talking about it in a way that isn't comfortable?

And that's the gist of the quote up top, isn't it? It's quite all right to concede "that a culturally diverse society raises knotty and complex social and political questions" but only if it's done in a way that is comfortable, by people who are trusted to understand rightly so that I may be comfortable. And basically, that's nobody. Because talk of it makes people uncomfortable. (Reminds me of Holder saying we should have a dialog about race.)

All anyone has to actually do is suggest that there are real problems presented by large scale immegration and that person then "shares the racist attitudes of Mr. Breivik."

Maybe it's just saying "problem" instead of "knotty and complex social and political *questions*." Funny that... both "problems" and "questions" require solutions, or maybe "questions" don't require anything whatsoever, but the self-congratulatory feeling of having asked them and solved nothing?

In any case, I suspect that Breivik is a statist rather than a small government libertarian or classical liberal (which describes most conservatives in the US) and I see no reason to feel any sort of personal affiliation with him, even if he wasn't a murdering lunatic but only a garden variety European right-statist. So I can say, he was undoubtedly right about some things and wrong about others. Most people are. Supposedly he said that the world would see he was right in 90 years (or something like that.) About some things, he may be right and it may be that in 90 years he'll be seen to have been right about them. Or not. But if he ever is seen to be right about anything, those things will NOT include the vile murders he committed. Not ever.

"Synova, there are all kinds of Christian and Jewish communities in the U.S. that don't ascribe to our basic tenets of freedom including the equality of women and men. What should we do to confront these threats to the "rewards that our culture provides"? What say you Synova?"

Considering that I'm a "melter" and not a "multi-culti" sort, I think that what I *say*, Jay, is that it is right and just to promote values of freedom and tolerance and expect those who move here to learn our ways. And our ways (unlike most of Europe) are to require certain common expectations of legal protection for the individual and privacy for the individual which take precedence, actually, over both religious organizations and over the State.

Synova, you want Muslims communities to be more like us? Then hope that they get god out of the classroom. Hope they get god out of the public square and there is separation of mosque and state. Are you down with that or do you prefer to cling to your smug little bigotries?

At what point do I support coerced public education? Oh, wait. I don't. At what point did I say that Muslims in America should not (like any other religious observation) have access to the public square? Oh, wait. I didn't say that either.

I said legal protection for individuals and the expectation of individual privacy. You *get* to be an apostate, if that's what you want to be. And there are no religious exceptions for common legal protections for individuals. You *get* to raise your kids to whatever belief system is your own, and they *get* to rebel.

The rest is adults rubbing up against each other and either adapting or rejecting the cultural tenets of the other, language drift, food and clothing habits, and attitudes. I have no idea why you seem to assume that a "melting pot" model doesn't adapt to the new influx of people. That's sort of the whole point of it.

Do you apply that to the Amish? How about Brooklyn's Hasidic Jewish community? The Branch Davidians?

What should we do to confront these threats to the "rewards that our culture provides"? What say you Synova?

I am not answering for Synova but I will certainly answer.

The Amish have not hijacked aircraft and run them into skyscrapers, killing thousands. There is no large, worldwide Amish population. There is no Amish jihad movement. The Amish do not kill their apostates. Individuals are allowed to integrate into non-Amish society if they wish. In short the Amish do not represent an existential threat to any nation or culture.

The Branch Davidians did not present any serious threat to the larger culture. Ditto the Hasidic Jews. Although the commentor’s cultural examples are certainly atypical of the larger culture; they are relatively benign compared to Islam. We can “afford” the commentor’s example cultures because they do not cost us much.

I apologize to those readers for whom this comment must seem to be a belaboring of the obvious.

For my part, I heartily approve of Israel--if for no other reason that the do allow Palestinians (whatever their religion, it's almost certainly not Jewish) to be citizens. At times they've even had Arab members of their parliament.

Grackle, Muslims no more flew jets into the Twin Towers than Christians murdered ninety young people last week in Norway. Instead, evil individuals committed those evil acts. To try to smear whole religions and peoples based on the acts of an evil few is ugly bigotry. Though it appears that it is the stuff that Ann Althouse cultivates on her blog.

Jay Retread - It is clear that you are the Muslim counterpart to what Lenin called the "useful idiots" in the West. Those foold who help advance Communism and would likely be shot by the Reds for deviationism upon conquest if the "imperialists" did not shoot such traitors 1st.

How is it worse to make the claim that Islam is incompatible with democracy? That was the article writer's definition of "quite another" sort of thing to go ahead and say.

It seems to me that this is the basic insistence of multi-culturalism. It's wrong to expect anyone's culture to grow and change or adapt to a new place because it's perfect the way it is. And it's wrong to suggest they can't or won't adapt or change, because that's bigoted, and certainly wrong to suggest they ought to. All of those *thoughts* are off-limits.

I have "smug little bigotries" on account of believing that Muslims are rational beings that can and do adapt and assimilate and are entirely capable of understanding the notion of individual rights and representative democracy.

And again... can't say that in multi-cultural land because it implies criticism of the norm of their culture and superiority of ours.

And yet, trying to explain this twisted result of impossible-to-reconcile demands and I get "for righties like yourself "multi-culturalism" is a strawman that keeps on giving."

Yes, well. The straw-man is buck naked and lefties refuse to admit that the straw-man "righties" like me is claiming is naked isn't a different straw-man altogether than the lovely one in the flowing robes that lives in their minds and noble intentions.

It's an identity thing, I know. Which makes it harder. When someone points and says not just "no clothes" but "twisted, socially harmful pathogen" and what they're pointing to is the exact same thing prompting most self-congratulation for tolerance and right-thinking... it can be hard.

Joe wrote: ... so, in your definition, a religion is NOT a spent force if people will act on its tenets…Sounds like Islam is a “good” religion, then.

Good in its non-ethical sense only. Effective and vigorous is how I'd characterize Islam, as opposed to mainstream Protestantism as professed by the majority of Americans which is largely impotent.

SO basically you’re saying that you don’t have a problem with Islam, you have a problem with the other religions not being equally militant?

No intelligent reading of my comment can lead to that conclusion. If that's what you have concluded it was not arrived at by rational means. You must have inserted your own material to get there, or else you're just off your chump. If you disagree show your work please.

Wouldn’t it be better to say, that Catholicism and Protestantism have adapted to Modernity and the Enlightenment, in a manner that Islam has not yet?

Perhaps, but I don't see conclusive evidence for this. Instead I see people who are less convinced of their traditional beliefs, more skeptical and more inclined to be restrained by secular contracts (such as the Constitution) than "holy" writ. Religion hasn't adapted, Bibles aren't re-written, dissenters and free-thinkers haven't been unburnt. Priests and preachers still demand obedience to the Word, but fewer people comply.

The killings could weaken nationalist fervor in Europe, as the Oklahoma City bombing cooled off militias in the U.S. in the late 1990s.

Not likely. McVeigh just wanted "no more Wacos, no more Ruby Ridges" and the goverment, after Oklahoma City...sort of concluded: "You know, maybe allowing eager "police heroes" to stage guns-blazing raids on large numbers of people including innocent bystanders isn't such a hot idea after all - given what the court and jury decided in Ruby Ridge or the threats we got after Waco".

A more apt comparison is John Brown. The abolutionist and slavery fighter quite properly convicted and hanged - for killing 5 in Kansas and 7 in the Harper's Ferry raid.But John Brown was just a harbinger of the violence to come, 660,000 killed, 500,000 maimed in the war that came later. Brown knew it, so did both Southerners and Northerners when Brown said on the day he went to the gallows: "I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood."

Breivik is John Brown. Brown's crime was not waiting until the shooting was more acceptable to do. What Brown did hardly shut down "the secession, slavery" controversy.

Synova, when you actually read your own gibberish that you so impress yourself with then I will take seriously your concern that I don't read others closely. (Though you add so much bullshit mixed in with the point you are struggling to make that it is hard to determine if you have a point at all.)

Btw, I never wrote that Islam is incompatible with democracy. That is just another one of your strawmen.

Grackle, Muslims no more flew jets into the Twin Towers than Christians murdered ninety young people last week in Norway. Instead, evil individuals committed those evil acts. To try to smear whole religions and peoples based on the acts of an evil few is ugly bigotry.

A Christian DID commit the murders in Oslo. But does that fact possess any true significance? For an answer we must ask other questions:

Is there a world-wide Christian analogue to the Muslim jihadists? No, there isn’t. Are Christian groups as oppressive as Muslim groups? Even a cursory comparison between nations comprised of Christian majorities and nations with Muslim majorities reveals an immense disparity.

Then let us go further with the questions. What is in the Koran? What did Mohammed preach? What do Islam’s current religious leaders teach? It is dreadfully obvious: Islam, if ever it achieves dominance almost always enforces a totalitarian existence on the population.

The simple, undeniable fact is that Islam is oppressive in its very nature. It seeks and ultimately demands absolute control of every aspect of existence, both public and private.

And Muslims certainly, indisputably, “flew jets into the Twin Towers.” Not one Muslim individual, or two or three, but several – who were aided by a network of Muslim organizations. And their deeds were cheered by Muslims all over the world. But the commentor cannot bring himself to admit what all this means. To do so would shake his foundations. And of course he plays the race cum culture cum religion card. Indeed, if I weren’t at some point labeled as a bigot by him I would be faintly disappointed.

Joe: Well he freely admits to having been inspired by:1) Sarah Palin;2) Glenn Beck;3) Rush Limbaugh; and4) The TEA Party.But stay in denial if you want, about the global reach and effect of Rightwing Hatred and Extremism."

You forgot to mention that Breivik also freely admits to being inspired by Israel (359 mentions in his 1500 page manifesto), by Jews, especially Zionists (329 mentions), and the rabid anti-Muslim doctrine of Daniel Pipes.

Jay Retread: It is interesting that Ann Althouse has cultivated a blog where the majority of her commenter's condemn the tolerant majority of Norway who have built an advanced peaceful society and instead have sympathy with the racist views of Brievik.

No, that's not very interesting. What is interesting and important here is the old "contradictions inherent in the system" problem. The admirable "advanced peaceful society" that the Norwegians built is under increasing strain due to imprudent immigration and related social policies put into play by an irresponsible elite who (as elsewhere in the West) are too busy congratulating each other on how morally fabulous they are to perceive the inevitable consequences of their dangerously incoherent multiculturalist fantasies.

Yet another dim propagandized git sniffing around for "haters", on the other hand, is not very interesting.

Sharia is not remotely compatible with democracy. Sharia is the core expression of Islamic values and the law governing Islamic societies. Therefore Islam is not, in general (there are always exceptions), compatible with democracy.

That this is not self evident to the NYT (the molder of lefty thought in the USA) just confirms that the left is out of touch with reality and has a destructive lack of common sense.

The bigger picture is what happens when a technologically inferior civilization which has supreme confidence and trust in its core beliefs confronts a technologically superior but morally enervated, self doubting, self hating civilization.

The idea that man knows anything about God seems absurd to me but I have to concede that religion can be extremely potent in herding the masses.

The civilization which is united and inspired by its religion has a huge advantage over the civilization that has lost its religion and its will to fight.

I do no know of one country that has absorbed immigrants into their society without problems, but also, I do not know of one modern country that has altered their essential legal framework as a result of immigration. Reading some of the claims here and in Breivik's writings makes me think of this quote:"Those who can make you believeabsurdities can make you commitatrocities."-- Voltaire, philosopher (1694-1778)

…Well he[the Oslo murderer] freely admits to having been inspired by:1) Sarah Palin; 2) Glenn Beck; 3) Rush Limbaugh; and 4) The TEA Party. But stay in denial if you want, about the global reach and effect of Rightwing Hatred and Extremism."

But have Palin, Beck, Limbaugh or the Tea Party ever urged terrorism? “Inspired” is one thing, it cannot be helped who might be idiotically and unduly “inspired” by the viewpoints of celebrities or various organizations, “urged” is quite another thing altogether. Has there been a world-wide, secretive, organizational effort dedicated to mass murder led and condoned by Palin, Beck, etc.? Upon hearing of the murders in Oslo was there cheering and dancing in the streets in the centers of Christianity? Was there open joy and public glee in the Vatican?

We all recognize that hatred may originate from any part of the political spectrum or from any religion. The pertinent question is: Could Breivik and McVeigh be proof of anything other than the perfidy possible by men? Sixteen years have elapsed between Oklahoma City and Oslo. How many major acts of jihad have occurred within that span of time?

A basic problem in declaring a moral equivalence between Islam and Christianity is that Islam was founded by a warlord adn Christianity was not. So, perhaps the question is whether warlord-ism can be separated from Islam. The question has not yet been answered.

Is it possible for majority-Islamic states to be secular democracies that respect the rights of non-Muslims?

The exampes offered of states that do are Turkey and Malaysia- yet even here, there is obvious tension between the Islamic majority and the nominally secular state.

As for Iraq, its constitution states:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

Do those who live in secular democracies have anything to fear if their states become Muslim-majority? I think a reasonable person would say that they have legitimate fears over whether it's possible to maintain a truly secular democracy that respects the rights of non-Muslims in a Muslim-majority state.